Stop referring to LEDs by their bin code

With three different Cree LED packages being commonly used in lights nowadays, it creates an incredible source of ambiguity on the forums. I hear a lot of R2 vs. R5, Q5 vs. R2, etc. The only thing you can rely on bin codes to tell you is the lumen output at a given input and efficiency.

Even worse is when someone generalizes, eg: Q5 is throwy, R5 is rather floody, and R2 is somewhere in between.

THIS IS WRONG.

It leads people to believe that bin codes mean something other than efficiency and maximum rated output! Any bin XR-E in a given reflector will exhibit the same beam characteristics to any other bin XR-E, and the same for XP-G and XP-E.

Better would be to say, XR-E tends to be throwy, XP-G tends to be floody, and XP-E tends to be somewhere in between. Even though such a generalization is horrendous, because the real difference is completely reliant on the reflector/lens used, at least this time the beam characteristics are properly attributed towards the LED package that causes the difference.

Just my 2¢. This has been bothering me for quite awhile now.

Right on, I admit I probably have done it in the past, but usually referring to Quark R5 rather than Quark R2, and so forth. Cause technically that's their model name.

RTTR said:

Right on, I admit I probably have done it in the past, but usually referring to Quark R5 rather than Quark R2, and so forth. Cause technically that's their model name.

Click to expand...

For a forward-looking company, it is a more important distinction to distinguish the different bin codes more than the different emitters, as it is easier for consumers to understand the improvement between bin codes (R5 > R2, clearly) as well as avoiding branding the light on the emitter name (XP-G) as they will want to continue upgrading as time goes on to the S2 and bins after that, as well as looking much further forward, to a newer, better LED.

However, as enthusiasts, it works more in our favor to discuss and consider a light by its LED package rather than by the bin code of the LED package.

Ha ha, i've always thought of you like the miserable grandad of cpf, always picking fault with everything and getting annoyed at people :laughing:

But i do have to admit that you do have this point spot on, it is misleading to make generalisations.

When youre new here however the sheer amount of numbers and codings referring to just the led in a light can be overwhelming, and it is sometimes easier to make assumptions, most R2's are XR-E format for example, and i havent heard of an R5 that isnt an XP-G either.

This can make it simpler to understand for some something that may otherwise give up trying to get their head round altogether, but i do agree that if youre going to go to the effort of really thinking about what light you want then it is important to understand the different terminology of the very things that power it, especially if it has an effect on the lights actual usability in different situations, in the same way i get annoyed if people are willing to spend a lot on a light, but dont give a second thought to using outdated or substandard batteries, which in my opinion are as important as the light itself.

What annoys me most is when people start thinking certain bins are necessarily related to certain colour tints, such as Q3's being warm white, Q5's being very cool white, R2 being purplish, and XP-G R5's being green, which simply isnt necessarily the case, they are efficiency ratings and nothing more, the colour is a completely different matter..

Thanks for the enlightenment... I have learned a great deal from you on this forum.

For us neophytes, it is a confusing matter because vendors indicate tints with designations like cool R2 and warm Q3-5A, which clouds the fact that preceding that description it says Cree XR-E. Hopefully, now I will remain focused on the LED and not be distracted by what you have described as bin codes. Or, at least that's what I think you're saying... :thinking:

Thank goodness Cree is beyond the P4 flux BIN... massive confusion with the Seoul P4!!!

that was annoying beyond belief

:thumbsup:
another insightful and useful post!

How about a break down table for what is out there right now for the less LED edumacated to get a handle on?

I guess if you want to be picky, it doesn't even necessarily tell you that much about efficiency as you also need to know the Vf. Unfortunately Cree XR-E generally aren't available in binned Vf whereas SSC P4's are.

Well to be fair, bin code CAN refer to color, eg "Q3-5A" which is a Q3 bin efficiency and a 5A bin tint (that weird warm tint people seem to enjoy so much).

But generalizing that all Q3's are warm and all R5's are green... that is completely wrong.

I hear you Carrot, it's annoying when people say "R2 is warmer than Q5" or whatever. Or they think R2 is the model of the LED.

Yeah, thats exactly what i meant, admittedly many warm tinted led's are currently Q3 rated efficiency, but it is the 5A that follows that specifies the tint, and the Q3, while linked in this case, actually has no bearing on the led's tint in itself..

carrot said:

Just my 2¢. This has been bothering me for quite awhile now.

Click to expand...

Thanks Carrot!! As a guy who is trying to learn all this LED/Bin/Emitter stuff, this kind of commentary is very helpful for me.

perhaps instead of making a new thread this would have made a perfect opportunity to bump that "down with ambiguity" thread of yours:thinking:

When so many lights and manufacturers use R2 or R5 or Q5 to define lights then why do you have a problem with people using that terminology?

Im not too LED savy but I have had the quark 123X2 with R2 and R5, pd30 with R2 and with R4 and Ive had the c2h in R2 and R5 and in all of those examples the smaller R2 emitter even with the same reflector had better throw and a tighter hot spot. I would never say that it is always that way...but its not a stupid thing to infer that if you want a little more throw to go with R2 over R5 unless the R5 reflector is much wider.

So based on experience and the testimonies of others I dont feel like its wrong to generalize in that way.

I think saying that the real difference is "completely reliant" on the reflector/lens is horrendous because thats just not true. same reflector and different LED produces different beams some narrower and more "throwy" than others.

carrot said:

Even worse is when someone generalizes, eg: Q5 is throwy, R5 is rather floody, and R2 is somewhere in between.

THIS IS WRONG.

Better would be to say, XR-E tends to be throwy, XP-G tends to be floody, and XP-E tends to be somewhere in between. Even though such a generalization is horrendous, because the real difference is completely reliant on the reflector/lens used,

Click to expand...

Hey joshth09, buddy, you are wrong. The difference that comes from R2 and R5 have to with the LED package that the bin is offered in, not the bin itself. By saying R2 and R5 you are suggesting that R2 and R5 are the same LED package, which is inaccurate. XR-E and XP-E's best bin is R2 and XP-G's best (as of right now) is R5. The difference in beam shape that you attribute to the bin is actually solely attributable to the LED package. Don't add to the ignorance. Learn about LEDs and you will understand too.

carrot said:

XR-E and XP-G's best bin is R2 and XP-G's best (as of right now) is R5.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it was just a typo but I think you meant XR-E and XP-E's best bin is R2 and XP-G's is R5.

You're right, of course. I'll go fix that ;P

carrot said:

XR-E and XP-E's best bin is R2 and XP-G's best (as of right now) is R5.

Click to expand...

XP-E best bin atm is R3

Here is my $.02 from the perspective of a new person who does (more than less) now understand the lingo.

I think Carrot has a good point and if people would follow this it would take a new person much less time to figure it all out.

When I first started reading CPF and so many things were over my head and I was just trying to pull it all together to understand what I was reading. There was a lot of slang being thrown around about R2 at the time. I thought R2 WAS the LED (rather than the efficiency bin). I started jotting down on a post it note on my desk the different terms that "seemed" to often be appearing together. Eventually it became clear that R2 (at the time) always referred to the XR-E emitter. It would have saved me a ton of reading if the slang had been "XR-E R2" instead of "R2". Now that there are multiple emitters that use the same bins - for example XR-E R2 and XP-E R2, it is necessary to use the emitter along with the bin if you really want people to know what you are talking about.

It is only a coincidence (as kramer5150 already pointed out) that this hasn't caused more confusion because currently there isn't a ton of overlap between different emitters using the same bin codes, but is it really that much harder to say XP-G R4 so that somebody who doesn't spend 3 hours a day reading about flashlights still might understand the conversation?